Latinos in Information Science and Technology Association (LISTA) and Alliance for Digital Equality (ADE) Announce Partnership to Further Digital Empowerment Initiatives.

LISTA and ADE partnership will work to facilitate digital advocacy, digital literacy,

job creation and economic development in regards to digital empowerment initiatives

Today, Latinos in Information Science and Technology Association (LISTA), the nation’s leading organization of Latino technology professionals and the Alliance for Digital Equality (ADE), a nonprofit organization that provides broadband solutions and broadband related services to underserved and un-served communities, are excited to announce a partnership to facilitate digital empowerment initiatives.

The strategic alliance of ADE and LISTA combines the collective skills, knowledge and experience of two diverse technology-based organizations, enabling them to work together to facilitate digital advocacy, digital literacy, job creation and economic development in regards to digital empowerment initiatives. In particular, the MSI Wireless Technology Act, the Workforce Investment Act, the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA), among others.

“We are forming this partnership right now because this is a pivotal time in the race to close the digital divide. Access to affordable high-speed Internet and broadband technology is a stepping stone to the opportunities of economic prosperity,” said Julius H. Hollis, Chairman of ADE. “As we focus on turning our economy around, we must make sure that those Americans currently in un-served and underserved communities are not left behind and further marginalized in this economy.”

“Both  LISTA and ADE have worked hard individually to provide and enhance digital empowerment opportunities for communities of color, now as LISTA joins ADE’s Board of Directors we will combine our unique strengths and expand our reach,” said Jose Marquez, President and CEO of Latinos in Information Sciences and Technology Association. “This will strengthen our ability to make a difference. I am very excited to work with the ADE leadership team to further these important goals.”

Together, ADE and LISTA will pursue initiatives in order to increase Latino and African American employment opportunities within American based information sciences, telecommunication, and technology industries. The partners will target project opportunities that make technology applications available to communities of color for educational purposes, for job training and development, and to enable fuller participation in the learning, civic engagement and cultural opportunities afforded jointly or separately by ADE-LISTA utilizing online technologies.

“As part of the LISTA/ADE Partnership, we will conduct a series of surveys of African Americans and Latinos in the tech sector to measure which tech companies are leading the way in corporate responsibility relative to their Latino and African American inclusion in higher management within their company. While Latinos have made strides there are areas in the tech industry we still have little to no representation, boards, upper management and key decision making positions are still scarce at some of the most successful tech companies, we can’t ignore Latinos in high tech anymore, it is just bad business,” said Marquez.

###

About Latinos in Information Science and Technology Association (LISTA) (www.a-lista.org)

Latinos in Information Science and Technology Association (LISTA) promotes the utilization of the technology sectors for the empowerment of the Latino community. We are an organization that is committed to bringing various elements of Technology under one central hub to facilitate our partners, members and the community with the leverage and education they need to succeed in a highly advanced technologically driven society. LISTA Mission is to educate, motivate and encourage the use of technology in the Latino community and empowering them to bridge the digital divide.

About The Alliance for Digital Equality

 The Alliance for Digital Equality (ADE), headquartered in Atlanta, GA, is a national, non-profit consumer advocacy organization that serves to facilitate and ensure equal access to technology in underserved and un-served communities. The Alliance also serves as a bridge between policymakers and minority individuals in order to help the public understand how legislative and regulatory policies regarding new technologies can impact and empower their daily lives. For more information on The Alliance for Digital Equality, please visit www.alliancefordigitalequality.org

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to Address LISTA 3rd Annual National Tech-Latino 2030 Legislative Forum.

New York, NY, June 14th, 2010 – Latinos in Information Sciences and Technology Association’s President and CEO, Jose A. Marquez-Leon proudly announced today that Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski will deliver remarks on the National Broadband Plan at LISTA’s upcoming 3^rd Annual National Tech-Latino 2030 Legislative Forum on Capitol Hill, Washington, DC at 6:00 pm – 8:30pm on Tuesday June 22^nd 2010.

“It is a great honor to have Chairman Genachowski address our members at our 3rd Annual National Tech-Latino 2030 Legislative Forum,” said Tony Jimenez LISTA National Board of Directors Chairman. “Chairman Genachowski has been an advocate for the Latino community and understands the critical role broadband plays in developing businesses and improving the economy for all Americans.”

 “We are extremely pleased to have Chairman Genachowski address our members at our 3^rd Annual National Tech-Latino Legislative Forum,” said Jose A. Marquez Leon. “Chairman Genachowski recognizes the role of the nation’s Latino technology sector and how broadband will help the Latino community continue to develop businesses and our positive impact on the economy of the United States.  He understands that closing the digital divide once and for all will give all Americans the chance to achieve the American Dream of financial independence and economic empowerment.”

 “Having Chairman Genachowski participate in LISTA’s Tech-Latino Legislative Forum is a testament to the recognized impact Latinos will have in our nation’s high-tech future,” said Danny Vargas.  He added, “We sincerely appreciate the Chairman’s interest and dedication to ensuring that the FCC continues to engage all segments of American society and encourages Latinos to take a leading role in not only telecommunications but all aspects of innovation.”

The 3^rd Annual National Tech-Latino Legislative Forum will provide Latino IT professionals an opportunity to dialogue with members of Congress about key concerns in the industries of Science, Technology Math and Engineering. It will also provide LISTA an opportunity to continue to raise awareness of the digital divide and how to bridge it, develop ideas on how to stimulate the growth of technology business, and be a catalyst of change in the high-technology and science sectors.

Event Information

3^rd Annual National Tech-Latino Legislative Forum is generously sponsored by MicroTech, Capitol Wire PR. Uber Operations, Broadband for America, NTIA, ADE, State Farm, Aetna and Comcast

Date: Tuesday, June 22 2010

Time: 6pm – 9 pm
Opening Reception Venue:  

Rayburn House Office Building,

Room B-338, Basement, Washington, DC 20515                       
To Attend Please Visit:  www.techlatino2030.org 

About Chairman Genachowski

Julius Genachowski was nominated by President Barack Obama as Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission on March 3, 2009, and sworn into office on June 29, 2009.

Chairman Genachowski has two decades of experience in public service and the private sector. Prior to his appointment, he spent more than 10 years working in the technology industry as an executive and entrepreneur. He co-founded LaunchBox Digital and Rock Creek Ventures, where he served as Managing Director, and he was a Special Advisor at General Atlantic. In these capacities, he worked to start, accelerate, and invest in early- and mid-stage technology and other companies. From 1997-2005, he was a senior executive at IAC/InterActiveCorp, a Fortune 500 company, where his positions included Chief of Business Operations and General Counsel.

Genachowski’s public service spanned broadly across government. His confirmation as FCC Chairman returns him to the agency where, from 1994 until 1997, he served as Chief Counsel to FCC Chairman Reed Hundt, and, before that, as Special Counsel to then-FCC General Counsel (later Chairman) William Kennard. Previously, he was a law clerk at the U.S. Supreme Court for Justice David Souter and Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. , and at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for Chief Judge Abner Mikva. Genachowski also worked in Congress for then-U.S. Representative (now Senator) Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), and on the staff of the House select committee investigating the Iran-Contra Affair.

Genachowski has been active at the intersection of social responsibility and the marketplace. He was part of the founding group of New Resource Bank, which specializes in serving the needs of green entrepreneurs and sustainable businesses, and has served on the Advisory Board of Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2). He also served as a board member of Common Sense Media, a leading non-partisan, non-profit organization seeking to improve the media lives of children and families.

Genachowski received a J.D from Harvard Law School (magna cum laude), where he was co-Notes Editor of the Harvard Law Review. He received a B.A. from Columbia College (magna cum laude), where he was Editor of Columbia Spectator’s Broadway Magazine, re-established Columbia’s oldest newspaper (Acta Columbiana), and was a writer and researcher for Fred Friendly. He was also a certified Emergency Medical Technician who served on the Columbia Area Volunteer Ambulance, and taught cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

About Latinos in Information Sciences and Technology Association (LISTA)

LISTA (www.a-lista.org) promotes the utilization of the technology sectors for the empowerment of the Latino community. We are an organization that is committed to bringing various elements of Technology under one central hub to facilitate our partners, members and the community with the leverage and education they need to succeed in a highly advanced technologically driven society.

So What’s Wrong With Arizona’s New Immigration Law? Guest Blogger: Luis J. Diaz, Esq.President and CEO, USHAA

So What’s Wrong With Arizona’s New Immigration Law?

Guest Blogger: Luis J. Diaz, Esq.

President and CEO

The United States Hispanic Advocate Association (USHAA)

Luis J. Diaz has over 20 years of extensive experience in a wide range of complex matters including intellectual property law, technology related joint ventures and strategic alliances, mergers and acquisitions, sales and marketing, and government relations. Mr. Diaz provides legal and business counsel to business units,  » read more »
~~~~~~~~~~

So What’s Wrong With Arizona’s New Immigration Law?

Arizona’s recently enacted immigration law (SB 1070, as amended by HB2162) makes the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and requires the local police to check immigration status and to detain anyone on mere “reasonable suspicion“ of being in the country illegally following a “lawful stop, detention or arrest.”  The law has generated great debate. Advocates say it is needed to fight crime resulting from illegal immigration. Opponents say it will result in the violation of civil liberties.  It is an issue that requires a subtantial analysis based on facts, an understanding of American history, and a review of legal precedents involving the abuse and limits of police power. 

FACTS & ISSUES
As confirmed by a recent study from PEW Research Center, the fact is that one in four Americans believe that Hispanics are the racial/ethnic group subject to the most discrimination in America. The study found that 32% of Hispanics 16 or older say they or someone they know has experienced discrimination. Less than half of Hispanics believe that police officers in their community treat Latinos fairly. And, most police chiefs around the country, concerned about the chilling effect of this law, oppose it because of its negative impact on their ability to fight crime, obtain witness cooperation, and other concerns. 

Despite recent amendments to fix the more obvious problems of SB 1070, the law still provides no guidelines as to what is meant by “reasonable suspicion” in the context of alien status: is it 3 or more Hispanics in a car, a red bandana, a plaid shirt, a migrant worker in the field, or someone speaking Spanish? The reality is that “reasonable suspicion” likely will mean those looking like, sounding like, or acting like the stereotypical undocumented immigrant. However, police officers will be trained to write down things not related to race on their reports like the swerving car, a crooked license plate, talking on a mobile, the seatbelt being unfastened, or some other similar statement that will be difficult to disprove in a court of law and that will pit the relative credibility of a uniformed officer against that of a stereotypical poor immigrant.  Notably, Governor Brewer has already announced training on the the subject of “reasonable suspicion” for police officers that one assumes are already experts on the subject.

If the Arizona law is really targeted at crime prevention stemming from the border, then it would be logical and workable if it simply required “probable cause” of some “criminal activity” before police could check immigration status. While the difference between “probable cause” and “reasonable suspicion” may not seem apparent to a lay person, these are two very different legal standards. 

HISTORY & PRECEDENTS
Millions of Americans have shed blood in many wars to preserve the civil rights we now treasure. There are 200 years of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence supporting the proposition that police powers must be narrowly limited to prevent abuse of individual rights – something our founding fathers recognized. Also, the mission of police officers is to fight crime – not to act as immigration agents. Thus, any law that creates supercops with immigration superpowers and that, in its actual application, makes it possible to target, arrest, search and seize persons with certain physical attributes is by its nature suspect and should require a higher standard.  On a cursory reading of the law, we are reminded of the phrase made famous by Hitler’s infamous Gestapo: “Show me your papers, are your papers in order?” The main difference is that with SB 1070 no “jewish star of David” is necessary for an Arizona supercop to identify the stereotypical immigrant.

Like the Japanese interment laws of the 1940’s, the Arizona law undermines the very notions of equal justice and basic fairness that are fundamental values of every American. As with the interment laws, this legislation is being driven by fear and hysteria and it is expressly directed at a group of people whose physical attributes identify them on first glance as members of a specific racial group. The failure of political leadership in Arizona has allowed people that may “look Mexican” to be singled out whether citizens or not.

Based on our history, we can now anticipate the development of a laundry list of “permissible factors” that can be cited after the fact to justify a “reasonable suspicion” even though race was in fact the first glance consideration in the initial stop. As noted, Governor Brewer has announced training on the the subject of “reasonable suspicion.” It is forseeable that Arizona’s effort to create supercops with immigration powers will spread like a cancer to other states across the country that do not border Mexico, thereby greatly magnifying the potential civil rights violations to all Hispanic citizens that may look “illegal.” 

If left unchecked, history teaches that this law could place this great nation on the same slippery slope created by the interment laws, the House Un-American efforts of Senator McCarthy, and similar dark episodes in our history where fear has been used to justify the breach of American civil rights. The eventual apology will ring hollow as it has in times past. In 1988 Congress ultimately passed and President Ronald Reagan signed legislation which apologized for the interment of Japanese Americans and acknowledged that the government actions were based on “race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.”

SO WHAT IS THE SOLUTION?

The problem starts in Mexico. Thus, any real solution to the problem of illegal immigration and related criminal activity must involve (i) securing our borders, (ii) enacting stronger anti-crime measures, (iii) passing immigration reforms that make economic sense, and (iv) imposing economic sanctions against trade countries that contribute to these types of problems.  The Arizona law does not address any of these issues. Instead, it targets the victims of failed policies by both Mexico and the United States.  This is equivalent to trying to stop drug trafficking by targeting users and not pushers.  We must call on Congress to pass comprehensive immigration legislation to fix our broken immigration laws and to hold our preferred trade partners like Mexico accountable, whether or not it hurts the economic interests of some large Mexican companies and their American partners in the short run. 

ABOUT USHAA:

USHAA is an award-winning non-profit providing economic advocacy, benefits and education programs to ensure that its business and individual members have equal access to contracts, jobs, education and other opportunities provided by our great nation.

Working on IT: 50,000 New Health IT workers Needed by Joseph Conn / HITS

Dombrowski

Part two of a two-part series

Along with the push to ramp up the use of health information technology in hospitals and doctors’ offices comes the need for a highly skilled labor force to get the job done.

Dixon-Lee said that today many AHIMA members are doing the work of IT specialists at their hospitals and physician offices while others can be retrained for these new positions. CAHIIM-accredited programs graduate between 3,000 and 3,500 students a year, of which 600 receive bachelor’s degrees and the rest associate’s degrees, she said.

“Our data show a 95% placement rate, but we aren’t producing them fast enough,” said Dixon-Lee, who cited a 2009 private workforce study commissioned by AHIMA last year projecting the need for anywhere between 12,000 and 50,000 new health information professionals over the next eight years.

Many Modern Healthcare readers who participated in our most recent annual IT survey reported having a tough time recruiting and retaining IT staff. A majority of survey respondents (58%) indicated they’ll need to hire more IT staff in the next 12 months. Meanwhile, 49% of responding executives said they have a hard time hiring or retaining IT workers, most commonly, because of a scarcity of trained personnel, but also because of low wages for IT workers in healthcare compared with other industries.

Officials at the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology think the demand for workers skilled in health IT will be even greater than the Bureau of Labor Statistics suggests, but perhaps near the upper end of the numbers that Dixon-Lee cited.

“In the aggregate, we have estimated to get to meaningful use by almost all care venues in the country we’re going to need something like 50,000 more trained healthcare workers in these roles than the educational system as it currently exists can produce,” said Charles Friedman, chief scientific officer for the ONC and its point man on ONC-funded educational and workforce development programs. The goal is to have 10,500 new healthcare IT workers trained each year over five years.

“We believe most of the people who can benefit from this program will come into it already possessing part of what they will need to know,” Friedman said. “They will be either IT people who will need to know more about health, or health people who will need to know more about IT. I can’t say what the balance between those two is.”

Friedman said the ONC picked the six “career paths” that the community colleges will train students to take. Those jobs are: clinician/practitioner consultants; implementation managers; implementation support specialists; practice workflow and information management redesign specialists; technical/software support staffers; and trainers.

“We looked at the field as it was evolving, not as it is today, but as we expect it to evolve,” Friedman said. ONC staffers looked at all the activities under the stimulus law and the low EHR adoption rate “and said, OK, what’s going to be necessary to get these practices from paper to electronic, and what roles are needed,” and what is needed to do it properly?

Under the ONC-supported, six-month certificate programs, U.S. community colleges are expected to train 10,500 students a year over five years. For those programs, there will be no certification organization required to look over the shoulder of the 70 community colleges expected to churn out those graduates.

“It’s a bit early to be contemplating that,” Friedman said.

Instead, Friedman said, the ONC has awarded a $6 million grant to Northern Virginia Community College, Annandale, to create and administer a competency examination for graduates of the community college training programs. AHIMA is “very much involved” in the grant, Friedman said.

The individual competency testing program was chosen as an alternative to certification, Friedman said, “to make it very clear this grant award is to assess objectively a certain set of competencies in each examinee who sits for the exam.

“This could evolve in the future into some kind of certification program,” he said.

Community college graduates of the six-month certificate programs won’t be required to sit for the competency exam, “but we hope they will,” Friedman said. Part of the money for the competency testing grant is to underwrite the cost of 20,000 students to sit for the exam for free, he said. “We’re considering this as a pump-priming mechanism to ensure enough sit for the exam to demonstrate its value.”

For the new student certificate holders, “We think it will improve their job prospects. Think of how colleges use the SAT exam to complement a student’s grades to enhance admission. I think in the same way, this exam will be a comparable assessment of a certain set of competencies,” Friedman said.

“For a prospective employer, it will be information above and beyond” the educational program, Friedman said. Data on pass-fail rates from the competency exams could be aggregated and reported back to the community colleges to help them assess their programs, he added.

Back to school

The university was a triple winner in the federal workforce grant competition, receiving a total of $5.8 million in funding for three programs—nearly $3.1 million for advanced training to medical professionals in healthcare informatics; more than $1.8 million to develop curricula to be used by community colleges to train healthcare IT workers; and $900,000 to serve as the National Training and Dissemination Center for the curriculum-development program.

Oregon Health & Science has an established, nationally recognized medical informatics program. At any given time, Hersh said, the university may have as many as 200 people enrolled in its postgraduate, 24-credit-hour certificate program and its 52-credit-hour, master’s degree in biomedical informatics program.

About two-thirds of the current enrollment in those programs consists of clinical professionals—with half of that group being physicians—and the remaining third being computer people, Hersh said.

The federal, advanced-education grants will be for scholarships to those programs, Hersh said, with the caveat being that enrollees in the federally funded graduate certificate programs must complete their work in 12 months, whereas in the past, a typical enrollee, who works and goes to school at the same time, often takes longer to complete the same course.

“If they do our graduate certificate program, they have to do it all in a year,” Hersh said, but the trade-off for the rush is, “in essence, people can get a free education.” Tuition for the certificate program is about $12,000. “We have 45 slots per year,” Hersh says. “The people who don’t get funded can still do the program.” It just won’t be subsidized, he added.

Aid recipients under this one-year, advanced educational grant program also must choose from six career paths: clinician/public health leader; health information management and exchange specialist; health information privacy and security specialist; research and development scientist; programmers and software engineers; and health IT subspecialist.

In addition to Oregon Health & Science, eight other universities will share in a total of $32 million in stimulus law funding for university-based, advanced IT education programs. They are: Columbia University; the University of Colorado at Denver’s College of Nursing; Duke University; George Washington University; Indiana University; Johns Hopkins University; the University of Minnesota; and Texas State University, San Marcos.

Along with its graduate-level programs, Oregon Health & Science, as part of its triple-win, will join Columbia, Duke and Johns Hopkins as well as the University of Alabama at Birmingham in sharing ONC grants totaling $10 million to develop curricula to support the six-month, community college IT certificate programs.

The new curricula will cover 20 different content categories, including history of health IT, installation and maintenance of health IT systems, project management, and the use of IT in quality improvement.

“The people who got funded were all experts in informatics who have been doing this kind of instruction,” Hersh said, although none of them has ever developed curricula for community colleges.

To make up for lack of community college experience, each of the contracting universities was obliged to enlist “a suitable number of community college partners,” Hersh said. “In my center, there are four community colleges partners. There are faculty that will work with us as subject-matter experts that will come up with curricula suitable for the community college setting.”

Work on curriculum development by the five universities and their community college partners began almost immediately after the grants were awarded in early April, Hersh said.

The schools have less than four months to complete their curriculum development work before Oregon Health & Science welcomes 400 community college educators to Portland in August for a crash course in the new IT training program outlines.

“It will be a pretty intensive week late that month,” Hersh said. After that, the newly trained faculty will return home and get ready for a hoped-for influx of new IT students. By the end of September, the entire first wave of new IT students is expected to be enrolled.

The participating 70 community colleges will form five consortia, each geographically dispersed, although not every state will have a participating community college. The five consortia will each be led by one community college—Bellevue (Wash.) College; Los Rios Community College, Sacramento, Calif.; Cuyahoga Community College, Cleveland; Pitt Community College, Greenville, N.C., and Tidewater Community College, Norfolk, Va. Grants awarded to these schools could total $70 million over the next two years—$36 million this year and up to $34 million the next.

At Bellevue College, administrators years ago foresaw the looming demand for health IT workers and began developing training programs to meet the industry’s needs. Patricia Dombrowski, director of the school’s life-science informatics center, said the college has graduated about 17 health IT workers a year over the past six years from its 12-month, 30-credit-hour health IT training program.

In 2008, as doldrums beset the Puget Sound IT job market, the college responded by creating a six-month program aimed at providing experienced IT workers from other industries with a background in healthcare IT. The 18-credit-hour program for these IT veterans opened this January with students to spare.

“We could have probably seated 50 or more, but we limited it to 25,” Dombrowski said.

In addition, Bellevue this summer will offer a three-month program for incumbent physician-office practice managers on IT project management and EHR support, she said. “Now we’re ready to scale up” for the HHS-funded training program, Dombrowski said.

Community colleges are not obligated to use the curricula developed by Oregon Health & Science and the other four universities, but all must focus their training programs on the six federally designated career paths. Although no single school is required to offer courses on all six job targets, each consortium must see that all six are covered within their group.

“I doubt we’ll do all six,” Dombrowski said. “We have to see a little more about the curriculum before we make a decision about that.”

Bellevue could get by with just some tweaks to its existing courses and curricula to adapt them to the federal program, Dombrowski said.

“We think we’re spot on and at the very worst, very close, but we have not seen the standard, and we’ve made some suggestions about the ONC accepting the existing curriculum,” she said. If required, “We stand ready to implement the national curricula.”

Bellevue will receive $1 million from the ONC grant to oversee its consortium, which includes seven other community colleges. Each community college, including Bellevue, will receive the same $625,000 in federal grant money to run its training programs and other services. Bellevue’s additional $375,000 will go to administer the consortium.

Beyond providing teachers and course materials, Dombrowski said, Bellevue will offer tutoring and counseling and employment services. The amount of money the ONC is providing “seems adequate to the task,” she added.

Will there be enough time to develop and disseminate the curricula, train educators and be ready for the first day of school by September?

Dombrowski thinks so.

“It’s wonderful in these tough times for people to be able to draw a direct line from training to be put to work,” she said. “The beauty of this is it’s so directly related to people who need work.”

Latinos in Information Sciences and Technology Association (LISTA) Applauds the 74 Members of Congress’ Letter to the FCC

New York, N.Y. – Today Latinos in Information Sciences and Technology Association (LISTA) President and CEO, Jose Marquez-Leon released the following statement in response to the May 24, 2010 letter to the Federal Communications Commission on the importance of broadband adoption and deployment over regulation.

LISTA is pleased to see 74 members of Congress join together and speak with one voice on the importance of broadband technology to transform the communities where we live and work. Broadband technology can revitalize the Hispanic community – providing access to first class schools and job training for high-paying American jobs.

Members of Congress have shown the Federal Communications Commission the importance of broadband – and the importance of focusing on policy goals before implementing net neutrality rules that threaten delay and deter broadband investment. We simply can not afford to keep high-speed Internet out of reach from the communities with schools and businesses that need to be online.

Congress has shown the Commission that there is much work to be done to bring broadband to all of America – I hope they will take the leadership to promote access and adoption with sensible policies that encourage investment, innovation, and collaboration.

Editorial Guest Writer Rafael A. Fantauzzi, CEO, NPRC: Stop the FCC from Treating Puerto Ricans as Second Class Citizens.

Washington, DC [CapitalWirePR] May 24, 2010 – Recently, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) treated Puerto Rico and its elected representatives with disregard and disrespect.  It held that Puerto Ricans don’t deserve the same quality of access to telecommunications services that other Americans enjoy.  This is wrong and this must be reversed.

Congress created the FCC for the express purpose of ensuring that “all the people of the United States” have comparable access to telecommunications services “without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex.”  In furtherance of this fundamental right, Congress directed the FCC to provide funding to ensure universal access to communications services.  And Congress specifically required the FCC to provide the financial support necessary to ensure that equal quality telecommunications services in “insular areas,” like Puerto Rico, are both available and affordable.

The FCC, however, turned its back on this duty and the Commonwealth. The FCC decided not to provide the funding necessary to ensure Puerto Rico has equal quality universal telephone service.   Instead, the Commission said that having affordable wire line telephone service isn’t important in Puerto Rico because, in the FCC’s view, we can make do with cell phone service.  What the FCC did not say is that this is a double standard that discriminates against Puerto Rico because the FCC’s policies on the mainland have ensured affordable access to both wire line and wireless services.

At bottom, we have a real need for the support Congress directed the FCC to provide.  Despite the advances seen in other parts of the country, many in Puerto Rico still lack access to basic telephone and Internet services.  In fact, Puerto Rico has the largest population of persons who lack access to any wire line telecommunications service—a staggeringly high 200,000 individuals and approximately 200 communities.  Moreover, many of these same communities lack access to wireless telecommunications due to weak coverage in the inland mountains. 

Had the FCC followed Congress’s direction, Puerto Ricans would be assured of the affordable access to equal quality telecommunications they are entitled to.  And we are not just talking about voice services.  Before the FCC made its decision, the Puerto Rico Telephone Company offered a commitment to use these funds to deploy voice and broadband-capable infrastructure.  This would not only have ensured access to wired telephone service, it would have provided a running start toward efforts to bring broadband to more of the citizens of the Commonwealth.

On the same day that the FCC turned its back on the people of Puerto Rico, it granted a substantial increase in financial support to wire line systems in Wyoming—despite the fact that Puerto Rico has seven times the population of Wyoming and 40 percent of Puerto Rico’s population is living below the poverty line.  For those of us who want to ascribe a neutral, objective basis to the FCC’s decision-making, this decision simply makes no sense.

It is time to let the FCC know that it can no longer relegate Puerto Ricans to steerage while the rest of the United States goes first class.  Thankfully, the fight is not over and we are not alone.  Representatives in Washington—including Resident Commissioner Pedro R. Pierluisi, Representative Nydia M. Velázquez, Representative Luis V. Gutierrez, and Representative José E. Serrano—have been working hard to urge the FCC to treat Puerto Ricans fairly, as federal law requires.  The FCC’s decision to ignore these requests reveals a profound disrespect not only for those living in Puerto Rico but for these representatives as well.  We must urge them to continue to fight for us and support them in the coming days as they tell the FCC to do its job and reverse its discriminatory decision.

###

The author is President and CEO of the National Puerto Rican Coalition, Inc., a nonpartisan, non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C., whose mission is to strengthen and enhance the social, political, and economic well-being of Puerto Ricans throughout the U.S and Puerto Rico, with a special focus on the most vulnerable.

CONTACT:

info@capitalwirepr.com

National Puerto Rican Coalition

202 223 3915

www.nprcinc.org

rfantauzzi@nprcinc.org

Note: To view this release and high resolution pictures on the web, click on the link below: http://www.capitalwirepr.com/pr_description.php?id=e324e091-3c8d-83e0-fc78-4bfa791a65be

Despite HIT progress, Who’s Still Left Out? Can Anyone Say Latinos?

As new HIT makes ever greater inroads into the nation’s healthcare system, there is bound to be an expanding array of stories that highlight the advantages HIT brings to patients and doctors alike.

But rather than taking too much comfort as favorable evidence piles up, policymakers should regularly wonder what percentage of the population is still not reaping the benefits.

Take this story from San Francisco. For HIT proponents, it just doesn’t get much better.  A single mother with a sick child on her hands uses all available hi-tech tools to get the boy’s situation diagnosed so that, much to his chagrin, he can get back to school without missing a single class.

The story goes on to describe how doctors and patients are communicating via videoconferencing, IM, e-mail, Facebook, and Twitter, and the result, particularly for those patients with EHRs, is a system brimming with convenience, new efficiencies and improved care.

But here’s the question that should nag at policymakers no matter how many of these stories they read: What percentage of the population are we not reaching with all our new tools?

On the one hand, there will never be a time for a definitive answer to that question, because HIT will keep evolving and the healthcare system will have to evolve with it. On the other hand, however, policymakers should already be trying to figure out how to measure, at least roughly, who’s using HIT beyond the healthcare providers who are making the up-front investment.

For purposes of comparison, at least when it comes to patient use of HIT, they might want to take a look at how the “digitizing” of the nation’s school systems has changed or not changed the relationship between parents and teachers. With three kids in school and a veteran teacher for a wife, our admittedly unscientific hunch is that HIT runs the risk of being used much like “Edu-IT” is being used. That is, those who are plugged in general are plugged in when it comes to their children’s education. They access their grades on-line, for example, and they communicate regularly with their teachers via e-mail.

But ask a teacher, and you may well hear the lament that the parents who really need to be more engaged in their kids’ education aren’t using the latest technologies to plug in, and the chances are they won’t be any time soon.

So will the same divide develop as HIT becomes more prevalent? Obviously, there’s no way to know for sure. The question, however, should be one of the first things policymakers think of whenever they read another HIT success story.

The Privacy and Security Challenges of Electronic and Personal Health Records: Is Your Business Prepared?

EVERY ADVANCE IN healthcare information technology presents a new challenge to a patient’s privacy. The recent initiatives promoting electronic health records (EHRs) and personal health records (PHRs) are no exception. While the use of these records could potentially revolutionize the way physicians treat patients and both patients and physicians manage medical data, they will also put unprecedented amounts of personal information at the fingertips of thousands of third parties. An increased number of individuals with access to health information will only increase the likelihood that, whether inadvertently or purposefully, data security will be breached. The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), state health information privacy laws, and state security breach laws all aim to protect an individual’s data from various incidents in which personal information may be compromised. However, the mere existence of these laws does not mean that a person’s health data is necessarily safe. Scores of high profile security breaches have occurred over the past several years, including breaches resulting in unauthorized access to massive amounts of private data at pharmaceutical companies, major data brokers such as ChoicePoint, hospitals, and the Veteran’s Administration. In the dawning era of EHRs and PHRs, physicians, hospitals, insurers, claims processing companies, and various information technology entities must be ready to combat threats to electronic health information. The reality is that many are unprepared.

There is a growing tension between the rapid growth in the use of EHRs and PHRs and the tightening regulation of the security of personal information. In order to effectively navigate the emerging technology and opportunities afforded by EHRs and PHRs, entities conducting business involving such records must be equipped to prevent or mitigate any threat to personal data that may occur, as we will discuss in greater detail below.

Electronic health Records and Personal health Records: Overview and Trends

EHRs are typically defined as clinical patient health records in electronic format that are originated, managed and maintained principally by healthcare providers. They may include information about a patient such as medical history, lifestyle, demographics, any prescription medication, test results, and billing information, and in some instances, they are made accessible to patients.

EHRs have many attributes; if used effectively they can reduce medical errors and costs, as well as increase efficiency. Their advantages range from eliminating confusion resulting from a physician’s handwriting to enhanced searchability, making it easier for a provider to assess possible drug interactions or for a consistent pattern of symptoms. Depending on the platform, another advantage EHRs may offer is accessibility. If they can be transmitted outside of a particular entity’s local information system, they have the potential to be shared with providers and other healthcare entities throughout the world.

PHRs are clinical patient health records in an electronic format that are created by patients themselves, but are maintained by an outside vendor such as an HMO member site or an information technology entity such as Microsoft or Google. They are accessed principally by the patient, but in some formats can be accessed by providers and/or insurers depending on what level of access the patient provides to healthcare entities. PHRs have advantages similar to those of EHRs if a patient grants his or her providers full access to records.

Adoption of EHR platforms has been historically slow. In late 2006, approximately 11 percent of hospitals had a fully implemented EHR system, according to a survey conducted by the American Hospital Association.¹ In study by the Healthcare Financial Management Association in 2006, hospitals cited lack of national information standards and code sets, lack of funding, concern about physician usage, lack of interoperability and concerns about privacy as obstacles to EHR adoption.² Less than 30 percent of office- based physicians reported using EHR systems in a recent study by the National Center for Health Statistics, and only 12.4 percent used comprehensive EHR systems.³ However, the use of EHR systems by office-based physicians has increased over 50 percent in the past five years.⁴ A wave of recent local, state and federally-sponsored initiatives should help to increase the implementation rate of EHRs. New York State and New York City have been particularly active in encouraging expanded use of EHRs by healthcare providers. At the end of February 2008, Mayor Bloomberg announced that New York City was ready to equip 1,000 Medicaid providers with an EHR system by the end of 2008. Already more than 200 primary care doctors in New York City are using EHRs, and the city says it is on track to reach its goal of 1,000 providers serving more than a million patients by the end of the year.⁵ Furthermore, Mayor Bloomberg is collaborating with a coalition of House Democrats to help achieve the goal of linking 75 percent of the nation’s health care providers through an e-record system within a decade. On the state level, New York Governor David Patterson awarded $105 million in grants in late March 2008 to 19 community based health information technology projects to help build a statewide EHR system.⁶ Grant recipients include Regional Health Information Organizations (RHIOs) such as the Bronx Regional Health Information Organization and Brooklyn Health Information Exchange, which facilitate the exchange of health information electronically within a specific geographic area.

Last year, a groundbreaking bill was introduced in the Senate by U.S. Senator Kennedy that, if passed into law, would “recommend specific actions to achieve a nationwide interoperable health information technology infrastructure” and “make recommendations concerning standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria for the electronic exchange of health information for adoption by the federal government.”⁷ The “Wired for Health Care Quality Act” would also authorize the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to award grants to facilitate the “widespread adoption of interoperable health information technology.”⁸ Essentially, it would serve to boost implementation of EHRs throughout the U.S. using a common platform. At the time of publication, the sponsors of this legislation were hopeful that the legislation would pass by unanimous consent in the coming weeks.

Various private entities are now offering their own versions of PHR platforms. These platforms would allow consumers to manage and access their health records online. It would also give consumers the option of giving providers and insurers access to their records as well. Microsoft (through its website HealthVault), Google and a variety of HMOs are all developing such platforms, with security and privacy controls tailored to the needs of the consumer. Additionally, the Medical Banking Project, a policy group that focuses on the integration of banking technology, infrastructure and credit with healthcare administrative operations, is also conceiving of a private PHR- type platform, which it calls “consumer-directed healthcare (CDH) platforms.” CDH platforms aim to go a step further than the PHR-platforms offered by Microsoft and Google, as they would not only give a consumer control of his or her health records, but also engage the consumer more fully in the financial aspects of his or her healthcare-related activities. A CDH platform would combine information from an individual’s health plan and personal health accounts such as Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs). The main objective of a CDH platform would be “to provide a coordinated link between the healthcare and financial services systems to offer the most comprehensive consumer-directed solution.”⁹ Such a platform would also benefit from enhanced security from the banks that help to administer CDH platforms. Banks would protect health-related information much as they presently protect financial information.

However, despite the recent surge in EHR and PHR initiatives, efforts still remain highly fragmented. The available EHR and PHR frameworks are driven by different philosophies, potentially compete with each other, and appeal to different types of users, therefore creating different standards for privacy and security. The current lack of coordination between these various frameworks may lead to an increased risk of security breaches, as communication between multiple and possibly incompatible platforms could lead to data leaks and subsequent tampering with records by outside parties. The patchwork of state laws as well as the general lack of regulation in this area beg for federal legislation to set a uniform standard that will harmonize these efforts.

Security Breach Laws, HIPAA and Their Application to EhRs and PhRs

Because private PHRs such as those offered by Microsoft are not explicitly regulated under HIPAA, which governs the use and disclosure of an individual’s identifiable health information, health records created by consumers using these services would not be protected by HIPAA’s privacy and security provisions. HIPAA generally applies to “covered entities”, i.e. providers, health plans and clearinghouses, and breaches in the privacy and security of patient records by these entities result in significant penalties.¹⁰ However, when an entity such as Microsoft enters into an agreement with a consumer, it is not subject to the obligations of a covered entity; it would not even need to enter into a business associate agreement, which extends HIPAA protections from a covered entity to its business partners. Thus, without the protection of HIPAA, consumers may be left vulnerable and could potentially shift blame in any privacy breach situation to the providers viewing their PHRs (unless comparable state law protections extended to entities like Microsoft). While publicly-sponsored initiatives such as the ones in New York would be more strictly regulated (as they would be most likely subject to HIPAA indirectly through these public entities” activities as business associates of covered entities as well as other state privacy laws), questions remain about just how secure their EHR platforms are.

The Wired for Health Care Quality Act, described above, would have amended HIPAA so that “an operator of a health information electronic database” would essentially become a covered entity.¹¹ This would have resulted in entities that offer PHR platforms such as Microsoft becoming subject to HIPAA and would create a new class of businesses that would be required to adopt more stringent policies and procedures related to the privacy and security of certain health data. However, at the time of publication, an amendment authored by Senator Leahy significantly altering the privacy provisions of the bill had been accepted by Senator Kennedy in order to “ensure the privacy of individual protected health information.”¹² Senator Leahy stated in a recent press release that the amendment would prevent “operators of personal health information databases” from giving sensitive health records “to virtually anyone under the [HIPAA] Privacy Rule.”¹³ This amendment eliminates the requirement that operators of PHR databases would be automatically covered under HIPAA. Rather, it would require that HHS submit to the Senate recommendations for privacy and security protections for PHRs, including whether it is appropriate to apply certain privacy regulations promulgated under HIPAA to PHRs and “the extent to which the implementation of separate privacy and security measures is necessary.”¹⁴

Certain covered entities dealing with EHRs and PHRs must also be prepared for heightened scrutiny of their security policies and procedures related to HIPAA. Earlier this year, the Office of E-Health Standards and Services of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) distributed a sample Interview and Document Request list for HIPAA Security Onsite Investigations and Compliance Reviews.¹⁵ This list indicates that CMS may request that a covered entity which contracts with CMS produce evidence of policies and procedures that address prevention, detection, containment and correction of security violations as well as other technical documents that address security matters.

Regardless of whether an entity operating an EHR or PHR platform is a “covered entity,” all such entities would be subject to state security breach notification laws (currently enacted in 43 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) which require disclosure to consumers of any breach in their personal data. Under most states’ laws, “personal information” includes only basic identifying information, but under the amended California security breach notification law, breaches in health insurance information and medical information¹⁶ are also covered. Therefore, any entity that has clients or patients who reside in California would be subject to these heightened requirements. The Arkansas security breach notification law also has similar requirements regarding medical information. Regardless of which state security law(s) apply to a particular entity, the increased aggregation of data in EHR and PHR platforms as a result of the initiatives described above will leave more personal data vulnerable to security breaches.

An entity that deals with medical data should be prepared to adapt its policies and procedures to the changes in California law. If the entity has a national presence, it is more than likely to have customers or patients from California. Also, because California was the first state to codify a security breach notification law, and most states followed its lead, one could expect that other states will soon follow its example of including “medical information” in the definition of “personal information.”

The challenges in complying with California’s recently enacted amendments are already apparent. Even an advisory group affiliated with the California Office of Privacy Protection, which assists with the implementation and enforcement of the California security breach notification law, has struggled with formulating recommendations as to how best to comply with the new requirement that businesses and state agencies protect against and notify California residents of security breaches in medical information. Prior to being amended, the California breach notification law and related guidance was geared toward breaches affecting financial information. According to Joanne McNabb, Chief of the California Office of Privacy Protection, a breach of medical information is “a different kind of breach in a lot of ways . . . . The risk it poses is not the same” as a financial data breach.¹⁷ The advisory group found that there is not an obvious way to “flag” a person’s medical record in the same way a person’s financial records would be flagged in the event of a security breach. Still, the recommendations are likely to include suggestions that breach notices be as specific as possible, stating what types of records were breached. Pam Dixon, a member of the California Office of Privacy Protection advisory group, said that the amended California law “may drive the debate nationally toward a uniform system like the credit bureaus for medical information.”¹⁸

Lack of Preparedness and Increased Enforcement

While entities increasingly adopt EHR platforms and promote the use of PHRs, they may not be prepared to assume the security risks associated with these types of data systems. In a 2008 study conducted by Kroll Fraud Solutions/HIMSS Analytics to better understand the status of patient data security at hospitals, the hospitals surveyed reported an average level of preparedness to deal with a security breach of 5.88 on a one to seven ascending scale.¹⁹ Yet the same study indicated that only 56 percent of these hospitals had notified patients whose information was compromised as a result of a security breach.²⁰ 13 percent of the respondents to the survey reported that their organization had a security breach in the previous 12 months, with a patient’s name and high level patient information, such as diagnosis, most frequently compromised.²¹ Also, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), in 2004–2005, 47 percent of Medicare Advantage contractors, 42 percent of Medicare fee-for-service contractors, and 38 percent of TRICARE contractors reported experiencing a privacy breach.²² While hospitals and health plan contractors may have policies and procedures in place to combat security breaches, the Kroll survey and the GAO report would seem to indicate that the implementation of such policies and procedures is insufficient.

As healthcare institutions lag behind in their preparedness to deal with data security issues, HHS has stepped up its enforcement efforts to counter noncompliance with HIPAA. In 2007, the total number of resolutions of possible Privacy Rule and Security Rule violations totaled 7,176, compared with only 4,761 resolutions in 2004. Of those resolutions, there were 2,199 investigations in 2007, compared to just 1,392 investigations in 2004.23 HHS is clearly responding to the proliferation of data security incidents that occur with increasing frequency as more health records become digitized and thus susceptible to compromise.

The short history of enforcement of security breach notification laws on the state level has been quite robust. Unlike HIPAA, which puts the onus on a covered entity to come up with its own solution to mitigate a violation of the Privacy and Security Rules, security breach laws mandate disclosure to individuals and, in some instances, to law enforcement agencies. Companies found to have violated a notification law may face civil penalties, injunctive relief and attorney’s fees and costs.

Recommendations for Implementation, Prevention and Response

Businesses that retain individuals’ healthcare data, especially those that interface with EHRs and/or PHRs, should revisit their existing policies and procedures to ensure that they are not only compliant with existing federal and state law, but also to anticipate inevitable changes to the privacy and security regulations and increased enforcement activities. As individuals and healthcare providers become more comfortable with putting personal health information in electronic format, they will expect a heightened level of security to accompany this data. Businesses must be vigilant about protecting this data, as a security incident of any magnitude may cause substantial reputational damage. Providers, insurers, and any other businesses that possess personal health information should consider taking the following measures in order to smoothly transition to a work environment incorporating EHRs and PHRs:

• First, an entity should determine exactly what types of data it possesses (if it is a covered entity, it should inventory its protected health information). The entity should also assess whether sensitive information is encrypted and the level of accessibility of such data.
• Next, an entity should assess its vulnerability to a security breach. It should look across its organization to identify strengths and weaknesses, i.e. not only should an information technology department be prepared to deal with increases in electronic data and potential security threats, but also departments such as human resources, claims processing, and recordkeeping that view and use individuals’ health information.
• An entity should review its physical, technical and administrative safeguards. It should make sure that passwords, encryption, physical locks and barriers allow only authorized personnel access to sensitive data and equipment.
• After the steps outlined above, an entity should revise its policies and procedures to reflect any new information gained and processes developed through its own assessment. For example, if the entity determines that it is inadequately prepared to respond to a security breach, it should create or revamp any related guidelines and protocols, such as, with respect to an entity handling medical information of California residents, how to notify a California resident of a breach in his or her medical information.
• An entity should periodically train new and existing employees to effectively administer electronic data and comply with rules, regulations and policies and procedures. Existing employees should be required to attend “refresher” courses on policies and procedures related to privacy and security matters.
• A business should reevaluate its contracts that include provisions regarding healthcare data and assess what types of provisions it could incorporate into its agreements regarding potential security breaches—how it will coordinate with the other party to prevent and/or notify individuals of security breaches.
• Specifically with respect to EHRs and PHRs, providers and insurers should assess whether they wish to develop their own systems, contract with an outside vendor, or try to become part of a state or federal program that facilitates the use of electronic records.
• If a provider or insurer does not wish to adopt its own EHR system, it should weigh the risks and benefits of encouraging its patients to utilize a PHR web-based system such as Health Vault. The provider or insurer should be comfortable with uploading patient records to an accessible web site and ensure it obtains necessary authorizations from the patient before transferring health records. The provider or insurer should also be aware of the potential for out-of-date, incomplete or inaccurate records from other providers or insurers to be kept on an individual’s PHR account and plan accordingly for associated risks.

Entities involved with all sectors of the healthcare industry information. should start strategizing now about how they can best coordinate their operations in anticipation of either adopting an EHR or PHR platform or merely interacting with consumers or other entities that use EHRs or PHRs now. Understanding how privacy and security laws affect a business in connection with EHRs and PHRs is crucial, as most healthcare operations deal with patient records at some point or another and will inevitably deal with EHRs and PHRs in the future. Preparedness is key. Making sure your business is in full compliance with existing privacy and security laws and anticipating changes to relevant laws are necessary steps to effectively navigate the increasingly regulated environment of digital healthcare information.

Linda A. Malek is a partner at Moses & Singer LLP, chair of the firm’s Healthcare practice group and co-chair of the firm’s Privacy practice group. Jay D. Meisel is an associate in the firm’s Healthcare and Privacy practice groups. Moses & Singer counsels a variety of entities in the healthcare industry and other industry sectors on matters related to privacy and security. For more information on this topic, please contact Linda A. Malek at lmalek@mosessinger.com or 212-554-7814 or Jay D. Meisel at jmeisel@mosessinger.com or 212-554-7823. For further information about Moses & Singer LLP, please visit www.mosessinger.com.

¹American Hospital Association. “Continued Progress: Hospital Use of Information Technology” (2007) at 3.

²Health Financial Management Association. “Overcoming Barriers to Electronic Health Record Adoption” (2006) at 2.

³National Center for Health Statistics. “Electronic Medical Record Use by Office-Based Physicians: United States 2005” at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/electronic/electronic.htm.

⁴Id.

⁵Mayor Bloomberg And Commissioner Frieden Unveil State-Of-The-Art Electronic Health Record Technology (Feb. 25, 2008) available at http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/pr2008/mr064-08.shtml

⁶American Medical News. “New York awards $105 million in health IT projects” at http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/4/28gvsc0428.htm.

⁷Wired for Healthcare Quality Act, S. 1693, 110th Cong. (2007).

⁸Id.

⁹Achim Welter. An Overview of Consumer-Directed Healthcare Platforms. The International Journal of Medical Banking. Volume 1 (2008).

¹⁰See 45 C.F.R. § 160.103 for the definition of “Covered entity.”

¹¹S. 1693.

¹²Amendment No.__ to S. 1693.

¹³Press Release. U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy, Leahy Announces Agreement On Privacy Provisions In Health IT Bill (May 14, 2008).

¹⁴Amendment No.__ to S. 1693.

¹⁵This document is available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/Enforcement/Downloads/InformationRequestforComplianceReviews.pdf.

¹⁶Medical information may include medical history, diagnosis, policy number, subscriber number, and claims and appeals histories.

¹⁷Laura Mahoney. Advisory Group Struggles to Pen Guidance On California’s Medical Breach Notice Law. BNA’s Privacy and Security Law Report. Volume 7 Number 18 (2008).

¹⁸Id.

¹⁹2008 HIMSS Analytics Report: Security of Patient Data (Commissioned by Kroll Fraud Solutions), Apr. 2008, 21.

²⁰Id. at 4.

²¹Id.at 19.

²²Government Accountability Office, Domestic and Offshore Outsourcing of Personal Information in Medicare, Medicaid and TRICARE (GAO-06-676, Sept. 2006).

²³Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Civil Rights. Compliance and Enforcement – Enforcement Results by Year at http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/enforcement/data/historicalnumbers.html.

Moses & Singer LLP ( Disclaimer Viewing this article or contacting Moses & Singer LLP does not create an attorney-client relationship. This article is intended as a general comment on certain recent developments in the law. It does not contain a complete legal analysis or constitute an opinion of Moses & Singer LLP or any member of the firm on the legal issues herein described. This article contains timely information that may eventually be modified or rendered incorrect by future legislative or judicial developments. It is recommended that readers not rely on this general guide in structuring or analyzing individual transactions but that professional advice be sought in connection with any such transaction. Attorney Advertising It is possible that under the laws, rules or regulations of certain jurisdictions, this may be construed as an advertisement or solicitation. )

MicroTech CEO Tony Jimenez (r) receives Hermes Award at April 9, 2010 event in Arlington, Va.

MicroTech President & CEO Tony Jimenez was recognized April 9th by the Hispanic Committee of Virginia at their 43rd Anniversary Celebration of Culture and Achievement, as the winner of the Hermes award. The award is presented annually to an accomplished business and community leader in Northern Virginia. The event was held at the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association Conference Center in Arlington.

A community institution making a positive impact in the lives of Latino families since 1967, the Hispanic Committee of Virginia is the oldest and largest Hispanic nonprofit organization in Northern Virginia. In 2009, HCV provided over 50,000 services benefiting over 14,000 individuals, including social services case management, financial literacy programs, workforce development, adult education, and youth mentoring.

“We are proud to present Tony Jimenez with the 2010 Hermes Award,” said Nury Marquez, Executive Director, Hispanic Committee of Virginia. “Tony lives the principles and values that the Committee holds dear and that exemplify the best of the Hispanic community. He has a long track record of commitment to Diversity and has overcome barriers to achieve success. And he is not content to stop there. He works tirelessly to develop the next generation of leaders by offering training and encouragement to fellow veterans, mentoring Hispanic entrepreneurs, and promoting opportunities for young Latinos to pursue and excel in science and technology.”

“It’s an honor to be recognized by the local Hispanic community for business leadership, as well as for supporting my Hispanic neighbors,” Jimenez said. “The Hispanic Committee of Virginia performs great works in empowering and assisting Latinos residing in the state, and the Hermes award accurately reflects the overall commitment of my organization to the community. My success with MicroTech has never been just about financial gain and I hope that the most enduring aspect of my legacy is about creating more opportunities for Hispanic entrepreneurs.”

Jimenez is the founder of MicroTech —recently named “America’s No. 1 Fastest-Growing Hispanic-Owned Business” by Hispanic Business Magazine. His strong support of the local community led to recognition for his business in the Washington Business Journal Book of Lists’ as a Top 10 Corporate Philanthropist based on charity giving and community involvement in Northern Virginia.

His 2010 charitable efforts include sponsoring “Military Appreciation Nights” at DC’s Verizon Center and the Patriot Center where he hosted more than 400 local Armed Forces personnel and their families at sports events.

Jimenez is a board member of the Virginia Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the first statewide organization to empower Hispanics in the Virginia business community. He is also the National Chairman of Latinos in Information Sciences and Technology Association (LISTA), an advocacy group promoting Latino technological and scientific engagement.

The U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce honored Jimenez as “Corporate Business Advocate of the Year” in 2009, and the Virginia Hispanic Chamber named him “Entrepreneur of the Year.” He was recognized during last year’s Hispanic Heritage Month by the Greater Washington Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and received the Chairman’s Award from the Maryland Hispanic Business Conference for his entrepreneurial accomplishments. 

He has also received other awards for his efforts including The Small Business Administration’s Veteran Champion of the Year; the National Small Business Association award for being one of the nation’s “Top Five Business Advocates;” Veteran Business Journal’s Veteran Entrepreneur of the Year; the Minority Enterprise Executive Council’s “Most Powerful Minority Men in Business;” and was recently selected for the second time by Federal Computer Week to receive their “Fed 100 Award” recognizing him as a Top 100 Executive who Influences how Federal Government buys, uses, and manages Information Technology.

About MicroTech

MicroTechnologies LLC, (d.b.a. MicroTech) is a certified and verified Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) and a certified 8(a) Small Business, and delivers robust process-driven performance for mission success. MicroTech applies its regimented process, enterprise IT experience, and state-of-the-art engineering solutions to integrate different technologies and create proven results that respond to clients’ strategic needs. MicroTech is a Microsoft Gold Certified Partner, Symantec Managed Services Partner, Tandberg Platinum Partner, Autonomy Added Value Reseller, VMware Professional Partner, EMC Velocity Partner, Citrix Silver Solution Advisor, Adobe Solutions Partner, Polycom Premier Partner, Dell Registered Partner, and IBM Business Partner. MicroTech is Hispanic Business Magazine’s 2009 No. 1 Fastest-Growing Hispanic-Owned Business; Washington Technology Magazine’s 2009 No. 1 Information Technology 8(a) Business in the Nation, CRN Magazine’s 2009 No. 1 Fast Growth “Unified Communications Solutions Specialist,” and on the Deloitte 2009 Tech Fast 500, the No. 1 Communications / Networking Small Business in the Baltimore – Washington DC metro area. ISO 9001:2008 certified, CMMI Maturity Level 2 rated, and ITIL management qualified, MicroTech is headquartered just outside the Nation’s Capital in Vienna, Virginia, with key offices in Richmond, Virginia; Greensboro, North Carolina; Huntsville, Alabama; and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Visit www.MicroTech.net for more details.

 

Paul Price

Chief of Staff

MicroTech

Vienna, VA

703-891-1073

LISTA is Proud to have Anthony Jimenez President and CEO of Microtech, Serve as Chairman of the Board of Directors 2010-2012

LISTA is proud to have Anthony Jimenez President and CEO of Microtech, serve as Chairman of the board of directors. In addition to all the MicroTech’s accolades, accomplishments and super fast growth that you may see in Microtech’s website http://www.mictotech.net,  Tony Jimenez, is fully committed to his employees team and the Free Enterprise spirit that motivates all who are employed at his company. 

I want to share with you this inspirational and superb story by inviting you to see a 3-minute video that tells the Microtech story about Tony Jimenez and our Microtech Enterprise.

Tony Jimenez, MicroTech’s President and CEO and LISTA Chair Speaks on Free Enterprise